People of the Philippines vs. Eddie Basite

The lone testimony of the complainant in a rape case, if credible, straightforward, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, is sufficient to convict the accused; a medical certificate is not indispensable to prove rape, and the absence of fresh lacerations or an intact hymen does not negate consummation, entry of the labia being sufficient.

AAA, a nineteen-year-old polio victim and a midwifery student at the Cordillera College in Buyagan, La Trinidad, Benguet, was at the time of the incident on her way to her parents' home to collect her allowance. At around 10:30 in the morning of September 1, 1996, while walking along a path in Natuel, Buguias, Benguet, she passed Eddie Basite, who was headed in the opposite direction. A few seconds later she heard footsteps behind her; looking back, she saw Basite following her. He caught up with her, held her by both hands, and told her to go down with him. When she resisted, Basite drew a knife from his waistband, thrust it at her neck, and threatened to stab her if she continued to resist. He ordered her to lie on the ground, and out of fear she obeyed.

Basite undressed himself and forcibly removed AAA's pants and underwear. He placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made a push-and-pull movement. AAA felt pain in her vagina and resisted, but the accused again threatened to stab her. When the assault was over, he warned her not to relate the incident to anyone or he would stab her. AAA pleaded to be allowed to go home. Seeing that the accused had laid his knife beside her head while he was putting on his clothes, she grabbed the knife and stabbed him on the left shoulder. Wounded, Basite ran away.

AAA tried to put on her clothes but, losing her balance, rolled down a cliff and lost consciousness. When she recovered, she felt pain all over her body and could not find her bearings in her weakened state. She fell asleep and woke up at around midnight, then made her way up the mountain by the light of the moon. She reached the place where she was raped and rested there for a while before continuing to her parents' house. Along the way she passed a house where she was offered camote to eat. While she was eating, some soldiers arrived and offered to accompany her home. On the way they met four men, one of whom turned out to be a brother of the accused and who identified Eddie Basite as the person described by AAA. He proposed that they go to the place where the rape allegedly took place; there AAA found and retrieved her bag. The brother then asked her to go with him to Abatan to see Eddie and talk to him and their relatives, but she refused. AAA proceeded instead to Monsoyohoy to wait for her uncle, whom she had learned was going home and would pass that way.

While walking toward Monsoyohoy, AAA met her uncle Nazario and other relatives and narrated her ordeal to them. Together with some companions they proceeded to the Abatan Police Station to report the incident and file a complaint. As they were passing through Bot-oan on their way to Abatan, they saw Eddie alighting from a yellow Ford Fiera, appearing to have injured his right hand. Nazario approached the accused, held him by the shoulder, and told him to go with them to Abatan. Eddie pushed Nazario's arm and ran away; Nazario and his companions gave chase and caught up with him. Gilbert Sacla, then Barangay Captain of Bot-oan, testified that he saw Nazario and his companions running after the accused, called a stop to the commotion, learned that Eddie was being accused of having molested AAA, and brought Eddie to the police station, where the accused went with him willingly.

At the police station AAA was advised to undergo medical examination. She went to the Abatan Emergency Hospital for the physical examination and to the Lutheran Hospital for laboratory tests, and was issued a medical certificate. The following day, September 3, 1996, AAA filed her Sworn Statement, and a criminal complaint was formally lodged with the Fiscal's Office. An Information for Rape was filed on October 2, 1996, to which the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment; his Motion for Bail was denied.

At trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Relante Raper of the Abatan Emergency Hospital, who testified that when AAA presented herself for examination her clothes were muddy, with mud on her right breast and pubic hair; that there were multiple healing scratches and contusions on her arms, legs, and inner thighs which could have been caused by the application of external force or the impact of a fall; and that internal examination revealed no lacerations, scratches, or bleeding on the perineal area and an intact hymen, with the vagina admitting one finger with difficulty. A whitish mucoid discharge found over the labia minora was sent to the Lutheran Hospital for microscopy and yielded negative for sperm. Dr. Raper clarified that it was possible, even for a married woman, to have an intact hymen since some hymens are very elastic. The accused denied having raped AAA and presented two witnesses. Lidot Lacbao recalled that in the early morning of September 2, 1996, he received AAA in his home and offered her camote; the girl was limping, had scratches on her arms and legs, and her clothes were muddy. She told him she had slept in the forest and had met a man who accosted her but whom she stabbed. When Lidot asked if she had been raped, she replied that she had not been raped since she stabbed the man and, if she had not, he would have done something to her. The accused also presented Dr. Ronald Bandonill of the NBI-CAR, Baguio City, as an expert witness to dispute Dr. Raper's findings. Based on Dr. Raper's findings that there was no bleeding or scratches inside the genitalia and that the injuries were only outside the genital area and on the upper and lower extremities, Dr. Bandonill opined that there was no insertion into the vagina and no physical contact or sexual intercourse; otherwise the genital area would have shown signs of trauma such as inflammation, redness, swelling, and even bleeding if the hymen was the type easily lacerated. He added that the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Raper was incomplete and incomprehensive and not compatible with standard NBI Medico-Legal Reports in rape cases.

The trial court agreed with Dr. Bandonill that the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Raper was insufficient to conclude that sexual intercourse actually took place, since it failed to indicate whether the labia and vagina of the private complainant were thoroughly examined to determine sexual contact. It nonetheless found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged based on AAA's spontaneous, forthright, and positive testimony identifying the accused as the person who raped her.

• Reasonable Doubt from the Medico-Legal Certificate: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court already entertained reasonable doubt as to his guilt when it ruled that the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Raper was incomprehensive and inconclusive as to the occurrence of sexual contact between him and the complainant, and that the court a quo should have taken this point in his favor and acquitted him.
• Credibility of the Complainant: Accused-appellant maintained that AAA's credibility was suspect because her testimony was inconsistent with the testimonies of the other witnesses, particularly Lidot Lacbao and Dr. Raper; that AAA allegedly confessed to Lidot Lacbao that she had not been raped and that she had stabbed her assailant before he could do anything wrong to her; that her declarations that she felt pain and blood in her vagina were belied by the medical finding that her hymen was intact; and that although Dr. Raper found multiple healed scratches and contusions on her arms and legs which may have been caused by her fall, it was doubtful that these wounds would have healed the very next day when she was examined.
• Disregard of Expert Testimony: Accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred in not taking these testimonies into consideration, in relying solely on the declarations of AAA, and in disregarding Dr. Bandonill's expert testimony, especially in view of its ruling that the Medico-Legal Certificate was inadequate to prove the alleged sexual intercourse.
• Voluntary Surrender: Accused-appellant finally contended that the trial court should have considered the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor, explaining that he voluntarily surrendered to then Barangay Captain Gilbert Sacla and willingly went with him and complainant's relatives to the police station in Abatan.

• Credibility of the Complainant: Whether the trial court erred in giving full credence and probative weight to the testimony of AAA and in convicting accused-appellant on the basis thereof.
• Sufficiency of the Medico-Legal Certificate: Whether the trial court's ruling that the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Raper was incomprehensive and inconclusive as to the occurrence of sexual contact created reasonable doubt as to accused-appellant's guilt and warranted his acquittal.
• Weight of Expert Testimony: Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the expert testimony of Dr. Bandonill and in relying solely on the declarations of AAA.
• Voluntary Surrender: Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of accused-appellant.

• Credibility of the Complainant: No. The trial court's assessment of the complainant's credibility is respected absent overlooked facts of substance, and AAA testified in a categorical, straightforward, and consistent manner, positively identifying the accused without any motive to falsify.
• Sufficiency of the Medico-Legal Certificate: No. A medical certificate is not indispensable to prove rape; the accused may be convicted on the complainant's credible testimony alone, and the absence of fresh lacerations or an intact hymen does not negate consummation.
• Weight of Expert Testimony: No. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is within the trial court's province to decide, and the trial court used Dr. Bandonill's testimony only to gauge the sufficiency of the Medico-Legal Certificate, not to doubt the accused's guilt.
• Voluntary Surrender: No. The surrender was not spontaneous, having been motivated by an intention to insure the accused's safety, his arrest being inevitable, as shown by his flight after the offense.

• Credibility of the Complainant: In rape offenses, the lone testimony of the complainant, if credible, straightforward, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, may stand to convict the accused, and the credibility of the complainant's testimony is of utmost significance. The trial court gave credence and full probative weight to AAA's testimony, and the Court will not disturb findings as to the credibility of witnesses because the trial court can best evaluate credibility owing to its opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination; its assessment is respected unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. Nothing on record impelled a deviation from the trial court's findings: AAA testified in a categorical, straightforward, and consistent manner, tearfully narrating the details of the sexual abuse and the circumstances leading to and following it, and unwaveringly and positively identifying Eddie Basite as her defiler without any purpose other than to seek justice. Accused-appellant failed to impute any motive against the complainant that would tarnish her credibility on the witness stand.

• Sufficiency of the Medico-Legal Certificate: Accused-appellant harped on the trial court's discounting of the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Raper as supposedly showing reasonable doubt as to the fact of sexual intercourse. Jurisprudence holds that even without a medical examination, the accused may still be convicted of rape as long as the testimony of the complainant meets the test of credibility and resolutely points to the accused as the author of the crime; a medical certificate is not indispensable to prove rape. The defense's further averment that AAA's testimony of rape was inconsistent with Dr. Raper's findings of no lacerations in her vagina and an intact hymen was likewise unavailing, because the absence of fresh lacerations does not prove that the complainant was not sexually abused; for rape to be consummated, rupture of the hymen is not necessary, nor is it essential that the vagina sustains a laceration, and research in medicine points out that negative findings are of no significance since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction. In this case AAA categorically testified that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and that she felt pain when he did so. AAA's testimony was also alleged to be inconsistent with Lidot Lacbao's statement that she denied having been abused by the man who accosted her, but the records showed that Lacbao's statement would be inconsistent with the attitude of disclosure AAA had with the other people she met after the rape incident: she related what had happened to the soldiers who offered to accompany her home to report the incident to the barangay, and to the four men she and the soldiers met on the way, one of whom was the accused's brother, who himself identified the accused and offered to bring her to his relatives to talk things over; she later met her uncle and told him she had been raped. Lacbao's testimony thus became doubtful when viewed against the whole of complainant's behavior after the rape and her testimony during trial.

• Weight of Expert Testimony: The testimony of expert witnesses must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it. Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case; the relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case, and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court, whose ruling is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion. Dr. Bandonill's expertise was displayed in court, but his opinion was based on the findings made by Dr. Raper in his Medico-Legal Certificate; he did not personally examine the private complainant. Based on the certificate alone, he surmised that there was no sexual contact, yet he was also of the view that the physical examination and Medico-Legal Certificate of AAA were incomplete and not comprehensive compared to the required NBI Medical Report. As the trial court found, the certificate failed to indicate whether the labia and vagina of the private complainant were thoroughly examined to determine if sexual contact took place. The trial court's consideration of Dr. Bandonill's expert testimony to rule on the sufficiency of the Medico-Legal Certificate did not mean that the court a quo doubted accused-appellant's guilt; the trial court merely used the testimony to determine for itself whether that certificate would satisfactorily show the results of a complete and thorough physical examination of AAA, consistent with the physical examinations conducted by the NBI and Dr. Bandonill.

• Voluntary Surrender: A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. If neither of these reasons impelled the accused to surrender, because his surrender was obviously motivated more by an intention to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous. The conduct of accused-appellant after the commission of the offense — running away after having been stabbed by the private complainant and fleeing from complainant's relatives when they tried to bring him to the authorities — did not show voluntary surrender as contemplated under the law. It appeared that accused-appellant willingly went to the police authorities with Gilbert Sacla only to escape the wrath of the private complainant's relatives who were pursuing him and who appeared to be thirsting for his blood.

• Lone Testimony of the Complainant in Rape — In rape offenses, the lone testimony of the complainant, if credible, straightforward, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, may stand to convict the accused. The credibility of the complainant's testimony is of utmost significance. The Court applied this doctrine in upholding the conviction, noting that AAA testified categorically, straightforwardly, and consistently, and positively identified the accused without any motive to falsify.
• Credibility Findings of the Trial Court — The trial court can best evaluate the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination; its assessment is respected unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. The Court found nothing on record to impel deviation from the trial court's findings.
• Medical Certificate Not Indispensable in Rape — Even without a medical examination, the accused may still be convicted of rape as long as the testimony of the complainant meets the test of credibility and resolutely points to the accused as the author of the crime; a medical certificate is not indispensable to prove rape. The Court applied this rule in rejecting the argument that the inconclusive Medico-Legal Certificate generated reasonable doubt.
• Consummation of Rape; Hymenal Rupture Not Required — For rape to be consummated, rupture of the hymen is not necessary, nor is it essential that the vagina sustains a laceration; negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction. The Court applied this rule to AAA's categorical testimony that the accused inserted his penis into her vagina and that she felt pain.
• Weight and Evaluation of Expert Testimony — Courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies but may place whatever weight they choose upon them in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering (a) the ability and character of the witness, (b) his actions upon the witness stand, (c) the weight and process of the reasoning by which he supported his opinion, (d) his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, (e) the fact that he is a paid witness, (f) the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and (g) any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered in view of all the facts and circumstances, and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court, whose ruling is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.
• Voluntary Surrender — A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. If neither reason impelled the surrender, because it was obviously motivated more by an intention to insure the accused's safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting the mitigating circumstance, given the accused's flight after the offense and his motive of escaping the pursuing relatives.
• Qualifying Circumstance Must Be Alleged — The use of a deadly weapon, which would otherwise have qualified the crime, is not alleged in the Information, hence even if proved, may not be appreciated against the accused. The Court noted this in affirming the conviction for simple rape only.

• "In rape offenses, the lone testimony of the complainant, if credible, straightforward, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, may stand to convict the accused." — This states the ratio decidendi for upholding the conviction notwithstanding the absence of corroborating medical evidence, and is the canonical formulation of the rule on the sufficiency of the complainant's sole testimony in rape cases.
• "A medical certificate is not indispensable to prove rape." — This concise statement of the rule disposes of the appellant's principal assignment of error grounded on the allegedly inconclusive Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Raper.
• "For rape to be consummated, rupture of the hymen is not necessary, nor is it essential that the vagina sustains a laceration. Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction." — This defines the threshold for consummation of rape and is the passage most frequently cited for the proposition that an intact hymen does not negate sexual abuse.
• "A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture." — This articulates the requisites of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, which the Court applied to reject the appellant's final contention.

• People vs. Dawisan, G.R. No. 122095, September 13, 2001, 365 SCRA 138 — Cited as authority for the rule that the lone testimony of the complainant in rape, if credible, straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature, may stand to convict the accused.
• People vs. Yato, G.R. Nos. 136317-18, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 284 — Cited as authority for the rule that the Court will not disturb the trial court's findings as to the credibility of witnesses absent overlooked facts of substance and value.
• People vs. Gabayron, G.R. No. 102018, August 21, 1997, 278 SCRA 78 — Cited as authority for the rule that entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction for rape.
• Espiritu vs. CA, G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995, 242 SCRA 362 — Cited as authority for the rule that the testimony of expert witnesses must be construed as presented not to sway the court in favor of any party but to assist the court in determining the issue before it.
• People vs. Baid, G.R. No. 129667, July 31, 2000, 336 SCRA 656 — Cited as authority for the rule that the relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, and that the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony are left to the trial court's discretion, not reviewable absent abuse of discretion.
• People vs. Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001, 370 SCRA 473 — Cited as authority for the requisites of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, particularly that a surrender motivated by an intention to insure the accused's safety, his arrest being inevitable, is not spontaneous.

• Article 335, Paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Punishes with reclusion perpetua an accused who has carnal knowledge of a woman with the use of force or intimidation. The Court applied this provision in affirming the conviction for simple rape, holding that the guilt of accused-appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further noted that the use of a deadly weapon, which would otherwise have qualified the crime, was not alleged in the Information, hence even if proved, could not be appreciated against accused-appellant.

• Justice Quisumbing
• Justice Austria-Martinez
• Justice Callejo, Sr.
• Justice Tinga